United Kingdom Immigration and Asylum (AIT/IAC) Unreported Judgments

A black background with a black square Description automatically generated with medium confidence

 

IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBER

Case No: UI-2024-002107 First-tier Tribunal no: PA/00087/2024

 

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Decision & Reasons Issued:

On the 19 February 2025

 

Before

 

UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE

 

Between

 

DA

(ANONYMITY ORDER MADE)

Appellant

and

 

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Respondent

Representation:

 

For the Appellant: Mr Bates, Senior Presenting Officer

For the Respondent: In person

 

Heard at Manchester Civil Justice Centre on 27 September 2024

 

 

DECISION AND REASONS

 

1.       The appellant is a male citizen of Iraq who appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision of the Secretary of State dated 7 December 2023 to refuse his claim for international protection. The First-tier Tribunal, in a decision promulgated on 11 April 2024, dismissed the appeal. The appellant now appeals to the Upper Tribunal.

2.       Permission to appeal was granted on only Ground 2 of four grounds:

GOA(2): At #27, the FTTJ rejects the appellant's evidence about the Home Office retaining his INID. The reasons for rejection are not founded on the appellant's credibility [or lack of credibility] (which only features in the next paragraph) but on the basis of submission by [confirmation from] the HOPO. It is arguable that that may not form a sufficient evidential basis for concluding that the appellant's account is not accepted. It may be that the error is not material because of the subsequent conclusion about the appellant's lack of credibility, but the point appears arguable.

3.       The First-tier Tribunal at [27-29] considered the matter of the appellant's documentation:

27. The appellant's evidence is that he initially had a CSID in Iraq. In oral evidence, the appellant appeared to suggest that his CSID was taken by the authorities in Iraq when he was issued with his INID. The appellant claims the upon arrival in the United Kingdom, his INID was taken from him by Border Force officers. As above, Ms Taylor confirmed that a check of the respondent's system did not show the INID was within the respondent's possession. The respondent is well aware of the importance of Iraqi documentation and its necessity in facilitating returns, and I do not accept the respondent would have taken the appellant's document and that not appear on his systems.

28. I have found the appellant has not been truthful about any aspect of his claim, and in my view he has every motivation for being untruthful about the location of his documentation. If I am mistaken, and the appellant does not have his INID, I note that having already provided his biometrics in Iraq, and being issued with an INID, there is no reason why he could not follow the process outlined in 6.7.9 of the CPIN, Iraq: Internal relocation, civil documentation and returns, version 14.0, October 2023. This indicates a replacement can be obtained through a power of attorney.

29. The appellant has family members living in Iraq, and confirmed in interview (AIR 9) he is still in contact with his mother and his brother. There is no reason why the appellant cannot enlist the help of his family in obtaining a replacement INID. I make clear this is because the appellant has previously been issued with an INID whilst living in Iraq.

4.       This appeal has no merit. First, as Mr Bates submitted, the judge who granted permission has answered his own question regarding the materiality of Ground 2 by refusing permission on Ground 3. As the First-tier Tribunal judge wrote: 'If I am mistaken, and the appellant does not have his INID ... a replacement can be obtained through a power of attorney.' Given that that alternative finding has not been successfully challenged, Ground 2 is immaterial.

5.       Secondly, in any event, Ground 2 fails because the judge has given adequate reasons for disbelieving the appellant's claim that the Border Force seized his INID; given that the judge did not believe any other part of the appellant's account, there was no need for him to accept that part.

Notice of Decision

This appeal is dismissed.

C. N. Lane

 

Judge of the Upper Tribunal

Immigration and Asylum Chamber

 

Dated: 22 January 2025